3 ms·

That's a hell of a lot of goal post moving. Comair is (and was at the time) a wholly-owned subsidiary of Delta. It counts.

• gruez 3y ago
  It's not "goal post moving" when his original post says "major airline".
  • TylerE 3y ago
    The flight was operated under Delta by a subsidiary of Delta wholy owned by Delta. This would be like saying if all of the Youtube database was hacked, Google wasn't hacked. Google owns Youtube. Delta owns Comair.
    • gruez 3y ago
      Subsidiary or not, at least one source (wikipedia) thinks the distinction exists. You might argue that the distinction doesn't matter when it comes to assessing airline safety, but that's hardly grounds to accuse someone of "moving the goalposts". The goalposts might be arbitrary, but they weren't moved.
      • pests 3y ago
        What exactly is the distiction? Comair started a regional airline. They partnered with Delta. Then Delta bought 20% of them in 1986 and the other 80% of them in 1999. If you want to call that a meaningful distiction then I don't know what to say. It's like claiming Instrgram is distinct from Meta because ??? I don't even know, they kept the name separate? WhatsApp is separate?
  • epcoa 3y ago
    You’re right, the goals were in a stupid place to begin with. I see no honest reason in the scope of this discussion to make this distinction. The regionals expand the network of the majors, it’s not like they overlap. People buy and use these services just like the major airlines. The distinction is interesting in the context of comparing the relative safety of the regionals but in a discussion about general airline passenger safety it is disingenuous.
    • stouset 3y ago
      My lack of including that flight was a mistake. I was unaware that Comair was operating as a subsidiary of Delta. Still, it doesn’t really change the upshot. No manufacturer was at fault here. And even if you include this flight in the data, flying in the U.S. is safer than any other form of travel. I chose to limit it to airlines operating in the U.S. due to our generally higher expectations around maintenance, pilot training, and workload, amongst other things. I chose to limit it to major commercial airlines because that is what most people fly on, and it removes extremely small tourism operators who are often far less rigorous in their safety practices and which are crewed by relatively low-hour pilots who are working up toward qualifying for a major. It also eliminates cargo aircraft which are not relevant. And lastly, I’m choosing to include only passengers to eliminate things like people walking onto active runways. Hopefully you can understand why I chose these limitations. Not to skew the data, but because it is most relevant to most people on this site, and because it’s not really insightful or helpful to point out that there are many more crashes in the many countries out there with lax safety practices.
      • epcoa 3y ago
        > Still, it doesn’t really change the upshot Indeed it does not, which made the omission more strange or innocent. What was ridiculous was the apologia subthread. > small tourism operators who are often far less rigorous in their safety practices, with relatively low-hour pilots. There have been some improvements (in part due to these accidents) but this isn’t so far off from the regionals which was definitely a factor in both Comair and Colgan. But crucially the majors are going to sell you a connecting ticket on them like any other, and they code share and mile just the same. Many of them are wholly owned to boot.
        • stouset 3y ago
          It was not my intent to exclude regionals operating regularly-scheduled white-label service for the majors. It was my intent to exclude microscopic commercial operators doing charter flights, tourism, and other similar activities. I sincerely apologize for the omission, I did not recognize that that Comair flight was operating under the United banner.